[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 84 (Thursday, May 18, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1730-S1731]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                        Congressional Review Act

  Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today as chair of the Environment 
and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife to 
express my strong disapproval of Republican efforts to undermine the 
integrity and authority of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
  Now, around the world, scientists tell us that 1 million species face 
extinction, including 40 percent of animals in the United States. This 
is nothing short of a biodiversity crisis, one that will have dire 
impacts on the ecosystems around us and the clean air and clean water 
that we need to survive.
  Yet, last week, for the second and the third time in just 2 weeks, 
Republicans passed a Congressional Review Act resolution to constrain 
the Fish and Wildlife Service and their ability to protect our planet.
  Three times now we have had to stop all other business of the Senate 
and devote valuable floor time that we could have used to pass 
legislation to confirm or promote military leaders and

[[Page S1731]]

otherwise do the people's business. Instead, we had to stop to debate 
the merits of protecting threatened and endangered species from 
extinction. That is not a joke--for the folks watching at home--and 
this is not an exaggeration either.
  Let's review. It was a half a century ago that Congress acknowledged 
the reality of habitat destruction and the threats to America's unique 
biodiversity. And, yes, Congress gave the Fish and Wildlife Service the 
power to administer a process for designating and protecting newly 
endangered species. Congress intentionally and purposefully handed the 
power over to experts in habitat loss and wildlife biologists--who are 
actually educated and trained--to determine which species are most at 
risk and what we need to do to protect them.
  It is no different than how we regulate prescription drugs, for 
example. We rely on the FDA and their experts and their scientists to 
protect the American people rather than trying to individually 
legislate every single medication. Imagine trying to legislate every 
single medication in this body.
  So the real effect of these CRAs is to set a precedent for personal 
grievances and for the folks who deny the science and prefer gridlock 
to prevail. Passage of these CRAs is the equivalent of saying that, 
whenever a powerful industry or a lone Member of Congress dislikes a 
rule that scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service issue in the 
future, they are entitled to a vote to second-guess and overturn the 
actual experts.
  I may be wrong, but I am not aware of any wildlife biologists 
currently serving in this Senate. At a time when more and more wildlife 
species are at risk of extinction, we can't constrain the ability of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service from following the science and issuing 
rules to protect them or, in the case of the critical habitat 
designation CRA, my colleagues are blatantly ignoring the realities of 
climate change and limiting our Nation's ability to react and respond 
in the years ahead.
  I suggest that, rather than grinding Congress to a halt, those of us 
who voted to follow the process that Congress itself created is the 
responsible way to allow the scientists and experts to do their job. 
Rather than ignore the science of the climate crisis, I voted to live 
up to the responsibilities that we have as stewards of this great land.
  And while this last week Senate Republicans got their way, I am proud 
to have a President in the White House who takes seriously our sacred 
responsibility to our planet and who refuses to overrule the experts 
and the scientists. But I also know that this is not the end of the 
CRAs and that our Republican colleagues will attempt to overrule the 
Fish and Wildlife Service and choose to put their personal grievances 
over progress in Congress.
  So when that day comes again--because there will be future attempts--
I will proudly, once again, stand with the experts and vote no.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.